5.  The applicant is a company registered in Chişinău.
6.  On 20 December 1994 two companies (Tehoptimed and Tudor & K.) concluded a contract according to which the latter rented a warehouse from the former.
7.  In June 1996 the applicant company was registered. On 19 February 1997 the original contract for the use of the warehouse was amended to the effect that all the rights and obligations of Tudor & K. passed to the applicant company. The applicant company stored merchandise (food and clothes) in the warehouse.
8.  On 11 June 1997 the police of the Ciocana Commissariat of Chişinău sealed the warehouse rented by the applicant company. On 30 June 1997 the applicant company complained to the Ciocana Commissar about a violation of its right to property and asked for the reasons for the police action. In a reply dated 2 July 1997 the applicant company was informed that the police had acted on the basis of the order of an investigator of the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office.
9.  On 30 October 1997 the applicant company requested the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office to revoke the order. In a letter of 19 November 1997 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office stated that its actions had been lawful. The applicant company made several other complaints to the Ciocana Police Commissariat and the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office and received similar answers. In its complaints, the applicant company claimed that the merchandise taken from the rented warehouse had not been listed in the minutes as required by law and that its total value had been 11,750,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 1,059,340 United States Dollars (USD)).
10.  The applicant company initiated court proceedings against the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office, the Ciocana Police Commissariat and Tehoptimed, requesting the restitution of the MDL 11,750,000.
11.  On 31 March 1998 the Chişinău Economic Court found that the sequestration of the applicant company’s property “in the amount of MDL 11,750,000” from its rented warehouse had been unlawful. It ordered the defendants to return the property taken from the applicant company. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final 15 days later.
12.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant company requested an expert report to be prepared in order to establish the current value of the property which had been kept in the sealed warehouse since July 1997. On 4 September 1998 the applicant company obtained access to that property. A list of items found in the warehouse was drawn up.
13.  On 14 September 1998 an expert of the Central Laboratory of Scientific Research of the Ministry of Justice concluded that the warehouse had not been heated or ventilated and was infested with moths and rodents. The food and clothes stored in the warehouse had been severely damaged and their monetary value was MDL 74,158 (approximately USD 6,685).
14.  On 29 October 1998 the Râşcani District Court returned the enforcement warrant to the applicant company and notified it that the total value of the merchandise found in the warehouse was MDL 74,158 and that there was no other property to be returned.
15.  The applicant company requested the Chişinău Economic Court to change the manner of enforcing the warrant by ordering payment of the original value of its property.
16.  At the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, on 19 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 31 March 1998 and ordered a re-hearing of the case.
17.  On 23 December 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court left the applicant company’s action unexamined because it had failed to appear and had not submitted the originals of the documents confirming its claims.
18.  On 14 January 2003 the same court returned the applicant company’s appeal (contestaţia in anulare) because of its failure to pay court fees. On 19 March 2003 the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova ordered a re-hearing of the case, finding that the length of the proceedings had already been excessive and that a decision on the substance of the case was required.
19.  On 11 November 2003 the Chişinău Economic Court rejected the applicant company’s claims. It found that on 23 December 1997 the prosecution had informed the applicant company about the discontinuation of the proceedings and that all the restrictions on the use of its property had been lifted. Accordingly, the applicant company could have used its property from that date, which meant that there was no outstanding issue to be decided by the court.
20.  In its appeal the applicant company stated that the investigator’s order to seize its property had been taken in violation of the law and that the seizure itself had been carried out without drawing up a list of all the items seized, again contrary to the law. The applicant company also noted that the unlawful actions of the prosecution and the police had violated its property rights and that not all the items taken from it had been returned. This resulted in its inability to fulfil its contractual obligations towards third parties.
21.  On 15 January 2004 the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court left the appeal unexamined because of the applicant company’s failure to pay court fees MDL 352,500, (EUR 21,021 at the time). The court gave the applicant company until 12 February 2004 to pay the court fees.
22.  The applicant company requested the postponement of the payment of court fees until after the examination of its case. It relied on its difficult financial situation, annexing bank certificates proving that there had been virtually no money in its accounts since 2002. It also claimed that in 1997, when it lodged its complaint, no court fees were payable. It finally invoked its right to access to justice.
23.  In response to the applicant company’s request, the court postponed the time-limit for payment of the court fee until 15 March 2004.
24.  On 15 March 2004 the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court rejected the applicant company’s request to postpone the payment of the court fees pending the examination of the case. The court refused to examine the applicant company’s appeal because of its failure to pay the court fees despite two extensions of the time-limit for payment.
25.  In its appeal in cassation the applicant company relied on its difficult financial situation, which, it claimed, had resulted from the unlawful actions of the police and prosecution and had blocked its economic activity. It asked for the postponement of the payment of court fees until after its appeal had been examined.
26.  On 6 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected as unfounded the applicant company’s appeal. The court found that the applicant company’s submissions that the lower courts had not taken into consideration its difficult financial situation was unsubstantiated. It found that the courts had the power but not an obligation to postpone the payment of court fees in accordance with Article 86 of the CCP. It also found that no waiver of court fees was possible for legal persons. Since the applicant company had failed to pay the court fees, its appeal was to be rejected.